Disposed

Court on Its Own Motion v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Sept 2012CWP/14819/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil writ petition challenging the release of electricity connections to unauthorized colonies, the Court disposed of the matter by noting a related file regarding regularization was already under examination, deeming no necessity to keep proceedings pending.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of the writ petition on the ground that a related case examining regularization of unauthorized colonies was already pending.

Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No. 14819 of 2012

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

*********

¶5

CWP No. 14819 of 2012 Date of decision : 18.9.2012

¶6

Court on its own motion .......Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others .......Respondents

¶7

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

¶8

Present:Mr. J.S. Puri, Addl. AG, Punjab Mr. M.C. Berri, Advocate, for Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Advocate, for respondent No.3

¶9

Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice (oral)

¶10

A letter received in the Chief Justice's Secretariat was registered as a civil writ petition wherein it has been stated that contrary to directions issued by Anurag Aggarwal, Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, electricity connections have been released to the houses situated in un-authorised colonies and it has been done by K.D. Chaudhary, present Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation.

¶11

Taking note of the above facts, on 7.9.2012 following order was passed by this Court :-

¶12

“Taking note of the averments made in letter dated 20.7.2012, Er. K.D. Chaudhary, CMD, PSPCL, Patiala is arrayed as

¶13

CWP No. 14819 of 2012

¶14

-2-

¶15

respondent No.2 and he is directed, through Mr. M.C. Berry, Advocate, to file an affidavit stating; (i) whether the land/house in question falls within the municipal limits or not?; (ii) when was the land purchased and what was the nature of land prior thereto?; (iii)whether any building plan was got sanctioned from the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana or not?; (iv) whether the house is situated in an authorised colony or not?

¶16

The site plan regarding position of adjoining houses and the street etc., upto a length of 100 meters on both sides be also placed before this Court along with the aforesaid affidavit to be filed.

¶17

Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana through its Commissioner, is also impleaded as respondent No.3.

¶18

On our asking, Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana.

¶19

Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana is directed to file an affidavit as to whether the area in which house of respondent No.2 exists, is an authorised colony or not?

¶20

Respondent No.1 is also directed to file an affidavit of a responsible officer indicating as to whether any violation has been made of the directions/letter issued, in the year 2010, by Mr. Anurag Aggarwal, former CMD, PSPCL. The said letter be also placed on record.

¶21

Adjourned to 18.9.2012.”

¶22

In compliance with the above order, an affidavit has been filed by N.S. Matharoo, Chief Engineer (Commercial), PSPCL, Patiala, stating that as per decision of the Board conveyed vide letter dated 3.5.2010, no connection was to be released to the houses situated in un-authorised colonies. It is further stated in the affidavit that lateron, on the basis of a memorandum dated 4.5.2011 regarding release of electric connection to unapproved colonies, a decision was taken by the Board on 13.5.2011 in the 11^th meeting to mitigate the difficulties of people living in such

¶23

-3-

¶24

CWP No. 14819 of 2012

¶25

colonies to release the electric connection provisionally by charging double the service charges, which decision was approved by Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission in its decision dated 12.7.2011. It is also stated that the present Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation has not recommended for release of any electricity connection to un-authorised colonies. An affidavit has been filed by K.D. Chaudhary, Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation, giving reply to the questions posed to him in the order dated 7.9.2012 stating that the houses in dispute are situated outside the Municipal limits of Ludhiana; the land was purchased in the year 2002 and the house were constructed thereon in the year 2007. Temporary electric connection was released on 22.10.2007 and permanent connection was released on 6.10.2008. A certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat (Annexure R-1) has also been placed on record to show that the area do not fall in the Municipal Limits. Raj Kumar, Municipal Town Planer, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana has also placed on record his affidavit stating that the area known as Lal Bagh falls outside the limits of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. It is stated that there is no mala fide on the part of any officer of the Corporation in releasing the electric connection.

¶26

Be that as it may, in CWP No. 12231 of 2011 titled as 'Ramesh Kumar v. State of Punjab', this Court is examining the question of regularization of un-authorised colonies. Let the record of this case be attached with that writ petition to look into the issue of releasing electric connections to the residents of un-authorised colonies. There is no

¶27

CWP No. 14819 of 2012

¶28

-4-

¶29

necessity to keep the parallel proceedings pending.

¶30

This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶31

(Jasbir Singh) Acting Chief Justice

¶32

(Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge 18.9.2012 Ashwani

Court on Its Own Motion v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Court on Its Own Motion v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Punjab, Haryana & U.T. Chandigarh

Hy. Distillery Yamunanagar Vs Central Pollution Control Board and Ors.(Main Disposed of)

Tanvir Hussain Vs State of Punjab and Others

Achhar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Prashikshit Adhayapak Sangh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Dalip Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.